In support of the idea that the `realities of nature' should be described by a (suitably generalised) causal theory, it has been argued that the purpose of quantum foundations is to provide an interpretation for quantum physics which retains as many concepts from classical physics as possible, so we should aim to retain the common-sense notion of causation. For example, ref [1]} motivates its use of causal modelling for quantum mechanics with the observation, `Reasoning in causal terms is omnipresent, from fundamental physics to medicine, social sciences and economics, and in everyday life.' However, before accepting this argument we should first try to understand what reasons we might have for aiming to retain concepts from classical physics in our interpretation of quantum mechanics. One possible answer is that we do so purely on pragmatic grounds, because we are unable to understand interpretations which don't retain such concepts. And indeed, it may well be the case that we are cognitively incapable of grasping concepts which are too distant from the classical reality to which our brains are adapted, but this doesn't really seem like a danger in this instance: the notions of symmetrical modal relations and causal order may be unfamiliar but they are surely not incomprehensible. Another possible answer is that we should try to retain concepts from classical physics in our quantum interpretations in order to help explain why these concepts appear in the classical limit. But this kind of argument is valid only if the presence of the relevant concept in the interpretation of quantum mechanics actually plays some role in explaining the appearance of the corresponding concept in the classical limit, and that does not seem to be the case here: as we observed in section REF , the existence of asymmetric relations underlying quantum mechanics would apparently be completely unrelated to the emergence of macroscopic causality, so the latter gives us no good reason to believe in the former.See ref [2]} for a discussion of a similar error that crops up in discussions of locality in the interpretation of quantum mechanics
